Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 10-14-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

A Jewish sage could not have said the things that Jesus supposedly said in the Gospels.

The Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book—and certainly not a minor work—within Jewish literature. This is not because, or not only because, it contains sentences which also appear in the same or a similar form in the Jewish works of that time. Nor is it such—in fact, it is even less so—because the Hebrew or Aramaic breaks again and again through the word forms and sentence formations of the Greek translation. Rather it is a Jewish book because—by all means and entirely because—the pure air of which it is full and which it breathes is that of the Holy Scriptures; because a Jewish spirit, and none other, lives in it; because Jewish faith and Jewish hope, Jewish suffering and Jewish distress, Jewish knowledge and Jewish expectations, and these alone, resound through it—a Jewish book in the midst of Jewish books. Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up all claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own. "The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. p. 101-102.

patcleaver · 10-14-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elena

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Paul never met a historical Jesus.

Where is evidence outside NT for historical Paul?
If no conclusive evidence for Jesus, how can someone say Paul existed?
No Marcion = no Paul. Possible: Marcion forged letters.

Maybe Paul was whoever wrote the Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians, and all the rest of the letters were just forgeries in Paul's name.

mountainman · 10-14-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

A Jewish sage could not have said the things that Jesus supposedly said in the Gospels.

The Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book—and certainly not a minor work—within Jewish literature.

Correction. The Fabulous Gospels were written in Greek for a greek audience and are Roman literature.

Quote:

This is not because, or not only because, it contains sentences which also appear in the same or a similar form in the Jewish works of that time. Nor is it such—in fact, it is even less so—because the Hebrew or Aramaic breaks again and again through the word forms and sentence formations of the Greek translation. Rather it is a Jewish book because—by all means and entirely because—the pure air of which it is full and which it breathes is that of the Holy Scriptures; because a Jewish spirit, and none other, lives in it; because Jewish faith and Jewish hope, Jewish suffering and Jewish distress, Jewish knowledge and Jewish expectations, and these alone, resound through it—a Jewish book in the midst of Jewish books. Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up all claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own. "The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. p. 101-102.

The only reason that the Fabulous Gospels are considered a "Jewish Book" is because at some point in the sedimentary deposits of ancient history, someone decided to bind together in the one codex the Hebrew Bible (in the Greek language for the Romans) to the Fabulous Fables (in the greek language for the Romans). Do we know who was the first person to bind these two totally disparate sets of literature together in the one codex? In brief, the LXX (an innocent bystander sitting around the mpire since c.250 BCE in the greek) was hijacked by the requirement of the Fabulous Fables for a certain amount of ancient authenticity.

When did this first happen and WHICH ROMAN first bound together (religion) the new and the old?

Best wishes

Pete

No Robots · 10-14-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Fabulous Gospels were written in Greek for a greek audience and are Roman literature.

This is like saying that native American oral histories once transcribed into English become European literature. This is nothing other than cultural theft.

spin · 10-14-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

A "Jesus" that was stoned about 100 years before the events depicted in the gospels

There are several unambiguous references to Christ in the Talmud, including this one where Rabbi Eliezer undergoes an inquisition for having appreciated one of Christ's witticisms:

Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of Minuth they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. Said the governor to him, 'How can a sage man like you occupy himself with those idle things?' He replied, 'I acknowledge the Judge as right.' The governor thought that he referred to him — though he really referred to his Father in Heaven — and said, 'Because thou hast acknowledged me as right, I pardon; thou art acquitted.' When he came home, his disciples called on him to console him, but he would accept no consolation. Said R. Akiba to him, 'Master, wilt thou permit me to say one thing of what thou hast taught me?' He replied, 'Say it.' 'Master,' said he, 'perhaps some of the teaching of the Minim had been transmitted to thee and thou didst approve of it and because of that thou wast arrested?' He exclaimed: 'Akiba thou hast reminded me.' I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name, who said to me: It is written in your Torah, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the house of the Lord thy God. May such money be applied to the erection of a retiring place for the High Priest? To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught by Jesus the Nazarene, For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return. They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth. Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostacy; for thereby I transgressed the scriptural words, Remove thy way far from her — which refers to minuth — and come not nigh to the door of her house, — which refers to the ruling power.—Abodah Zarah, folio 16b-17a

For you to try to make sense of this, you need to explain how a late text such as the Bavli Abodah Zarah got the information. Otherwise you won't know what it's importance is, if it has any for us.

spin

spin · 10-14-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Fabulous Gospels were written in Greek for a greek audience and are Roman literature.

This is like saying that native American oral histories once transcribed into English become European literature.

This is rubbish. The gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. They weren't written in Palestine, otherwise they'd know better than to make the geographical errors. Mark was written in a Roman context, even giving explanations for a Latin audience.

You'd probably want to call the Tanna Island cargo cult European because it's leading figure has a European name. Just as there are some christian elements in the cargo cult, you'll find some Jewish elements in earliest christianity. This doesn't change the fact that the gospels "were written in Greek for a greek audience".

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

This is nothing other than cultural theft.

The irony of this last statement is that christians now call the Hebrew bible "the old testament", while they offer another, for them more useful, collection as "the new testament".

spin

patcleaver · 10-14-2008, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

A Jewish sage could not have said the things that Jesus supposedly said in the Gospels.

The Gospel, which was originally something Jewish, becomes a book—and certainly not a minor work—within Jewish literature. This is not because, or not only because, it contains sentences which also appear in the same or a similar form in the Jewish works of that time. Nor is it such—in fact, it is even less so—because the Hebrew or Aramaic breaks again and again through the word forms and sentence formations of the Greek translation. Rather it is a Jewish book because—by all means and entirely because—the pure air of which it is full and which it breathes is that of the Holy Scriptures; because a Jewish spirit, and none other, lives in it; because Jewish faith and Jewish hope, Jewish suffering and Jewish distress, Jewish knowledge and Jewish expectations, and these alone, resound through it—a Jewish book in the midst of Jewish books. Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up all claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own. "The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. p. 101-102.

What a ball of meaningless fluff. This is not intended to be factual, but just an emotional plea for Jewish - Christian ecumenicism. The Christians wish that the Gospels were Jewish. The Jews wish the Gospels were Jewish. So these two groups pretend together that the gospels are Jewish. The only problem is that the gospels are pagan.

Mark was written by pagans for a pagan audience.

Roger Pearse · 10-15-2008, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Most scholars (even St. Jerome) consider the Testimonium Flavius a forgery.

Interesting statement about Jerome (I think you are mistaken about the *modern* consensus -- that sounds like the view of a century ago). Where does he say so? He does quote it in De viris illustribus.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 10-15-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Fabulous Gospels were written in Greek for a greek audience and are Roman literature.

This is like saying that native American oral histories once transcribed into English become European literature. This is nothing other than cultural theft.

Dear No Robots,

Was Henry Longfellow an Apache medicine man?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LONGFELLOW

You shall hear how Hiawatha prayed
and fasted in the forest,
Not for greater skill in hunting,
Not for greater craft in fishing,
Not for triumphs in the battle,
And renown among the warriors,
But for profit of the people,
For advantage of the nations

Best wishes,

Pete

Apostate1970 · 10-15-2008, 12:43 PM

So it seems that the ahistoricists have a central principle that they abide by, and that is:

P: "Unless there is a manuscript produced contemporaneously with an event or perhaps artifacts that support an oral tradition, then the event simply never happened and any theory which even tacitly assumes its truth is simply story-telling and not worth pursuing."

Is P something that any reasonable historian would accept? No. Is P how history is actually done? No. Is P consistently applied to all traditions and beliefs by the ahistoricists? Somehow I doubt it. Would history look remotely like it does now if we all adopted P. No, not at all, and furthermore, history would become so mutiliated that it would become almost totally impossible to do productive theorizing within it. And since it is theory that leads to discovery, then history, archaeology, historical anthropology, historiography, all of it ... all of it would dry up and blow away overnight. The disciplines would be shut down on campuses around the world, textbooks thrown into the trash, research funding would disappear.

There is also a possible supplementary principle which is:

S: "If we have good reason to doubt the truth of some claims of a tradition then we have good reason to doubt all of them."

Everything I asked about P above can be just as well applied to S.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-15-2008, 12:43 PM	#50
Apostate1970 Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,347	So it seems that the ahistoricists have a central principle that they abide by, and that is: P: "Unless there is a manuscript produced contemporaneously with an event or perhaps artifacts that support an oral tradition, then the event simply never happened and any theory which even tacitly assumes its truth is simply story-telling and not worth pursuing." Is P something that any reasonable historian would accept? No. Is P how history is actually done? No. Is P consistently applied to all traditions and beliefs by the ahistoricists? Somehow I doubt it. Would history look remotely like it does now if we all adopted P. No, not at all, and furthermore, history would become so mutiliated that it would become almost totally impossible to do productive theorizing within it. And since it is theory that leads to discovery, then history, archaeology, historical anthropology, historiography, all of it ... all of it would dry up and blow away overnight. The disciplines would be shut down on campuses around the world, textbooks thrown into the trash, research funding would disappear. There is also a possible supplementary principle which is: S: "If we have good reason to doubt the truth of some claims of a tradition then we have good reason to doubt all of them." Everything I asked about P above can be just as well applied to S.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.